Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slake's Limbo


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   Speedy Keep because no one is arguing that the article be deleted (and several excellent references have been provided). Non-admin closure. --GRuban (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Slake's Limbo
Proposed for deletion in August 2008, deleted by me. The deletion was later contested, so I've undeleted it and automatically placed it on AFD as routine. No vote. J I P | Talk 04:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This is tricky - it claims notability through the two awards,but when you search for the "Lewis Carroll Shelf Award" it's missed from the list of winners - I guess because the book went out of print and those sites with the list of winners were linked to other sites that are selling books. It's missing from Wikipedias list of winners too. It's now in print again but with no reviews or further awards it's not looking good: although notability is permanent. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree that this is tricky - I asked for this to be considered for "undeletion" because I think it is an important piece. If you Google the title, even with specifying only educational (.edu) sources, you see hundreds of results, which you wouldn't see for an insignificant piece.  However, I haven't seen a scholarly analysis of the book which could be used for Wikipedia.  Perhaps the page could be kept for the time being, until someone comes along with some better sources. --Jjm10 (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep....I think OK, I've trawled thru the net and found.....a review in the New York Times, which unfortunately is archived so most of it behind a paysite, but I've added it to the article. Then there's this, which gives a ton of good info, but gimme some feedback on how you all rate it as a source. If it's good, I'll sort the article using this and whatever else I can dig up. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep under criterion 1 on the grounds that the nominator isn't requesting deletion - there is no procedure that says that a restored prod has to automatically go to AfD as routine. If for some unfathomable reason that isn't done then keep per the hundreds of reliable sources found by a Google Books search. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I added some references and removed some maintenance templates (as explained in the edit summaries). As to the question of notability: 1. there're the awards (now sourced) 2. I've seen this book being mentioned very positively on some serious sites (here and here) A definite keep. Debresser (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.